Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority

S.D. New York

Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority

DecidedJune 21, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01880

StatusUnknown

This text of Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority (Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : JOHN IMHOF, : : Plaintiff, : : 23 Civ. 1880 (JPC) (JW) -v- : : ORDER NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Defendant Daniel Sherrod has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Dkts. 66-69. In support of his motion, Sherrod filed a certification from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which certifies, inter alia, “that during the relevant period, Sherrod was an employee of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.” Dkt. 68. As this certification is outside the pleadings, Sherrod asks that to the extent the Court decides to consider the certification in connection with the Rule 12(b)(6) portion of his motion, the Court convert that portion to a motion for summary judgment under to Rule 56. Dkt. 77 at 1 n.1. “If the Court decides to convert [a] motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must be given a ‘reasonable opportunity to meet facts outside the pleadings.’” Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, P.C. v. Kel & Partners LLC, 151 F. Supp. 3d 287, 291 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting In re G. & A. Books, Inc., 770 F.2d 288, 295 (2d Cir.1985)), aff’d, 670 Fed. App’x 731 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall advise the Court by June 28, 2024, whether he wishes to take discovery on the sole question of whether Sherrod was a federal employee during all times relevant for the claims against Sherrod in this action. SO ORDERED. Wha Dated: June 21, 2024 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : JOHN IMHOF, : : Plaintiff, : : 23 Civ. 1880 (JPC) (JW) -v- : : ORDER NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Defendant Daniel Sherrod has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Dkts. 66-69. In support of his motion, Sherrod filed a certification from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which certifies, inter alia, “that during the relevant period, Sherrod was an employee of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.” Dkt. 68. As this certification is outside the pleadings, Sherrod asks that to the extent the Court decides to consider the certification in connection with the Rule 12(b)(6) portion of his motion, the Court convert that portion to a motion for summary judgment under to Rule 56. Dkt. 77 at 1 n.1. “If the Court decides to convert [a] motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must be given a ‘reasonable opportunity to meet facts outside the pleadings.’” Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, P.C. v. Kel & Partners LLC, 151 F. Supp. 3d 287, 291 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting In re G. & A. Books, Inc., 770 F.2d 288, 295 (2d Cir.1985)), aff’d, 670 Fed. App’x 731 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall advise the Court by June 28, 2024, whether he wishes to take discovery on the sole question of whether Sherrod was a federal employee during all times relevant for the claims against Sherrod in this action. SO ORDERED. Wha Dated: June 21, 2024 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imhof-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack